Cinematical

This seems to be a universal trend. The same discussion is going on in Germany at the moment, especially with regards to "Perfume" which made a lot of money but was harshly criticized by critics.

Reply

Yea, and Wild Hogs will be up for a best Picture Award. :-)

Reply

Oh, Yes, I'll be looking for Wild Hogs, Norbit, Ghost Rider, and Night at the Museum at next year's Oscars.

Reply

This is an absolute non-story. (Variety's, not yours, Mon.) This just in! Film critics don't like crappy movies!!

Rothman seems to want it both ways, but if you make a "lowest common denominator" comedy that's as poorly-made as "Wild Hogs" is, you're going to get critics bashing it. But the thing made huge money, so who cares?

You want good reviews? Make a better movie. Oh, but then it probably won't make $40m in one weekend... Quite the quandary.

Reply

I disagree. Movies and film critics are divided between popular movies and message movies. Film critics are more often than not interested in the message of the movie and how it provides for reeducation of the usually unwilling audience. The 'meaningful' movie. Critics don't like 'fun' movies, critics often don't like good movies. They like movies with the proper message and meaning. Their critically acclaimed movies are often times frightful bores and deservedly do poorly. Popularity doesn't equal quality but popularity, as voted by consumers with their cash money is the cash of the realm. The analogy between McDonald's and Kobe beef is not valid because the same person can want a quick Big Mac and later want a fine meal but the same person who wants to see a movie that is fun and entertaining isn't the same sad sack that wants to go see some meaningful message movie which is boring and meaningful. Also the reactions of snooty critics and actors of being snooty is perfectly acceptable but when someone calls them on that then it's a full blown scandal. Double standard of course.

Reply

Gadlaw,

So, because a ridiculous number of people have seen Wild Hogs its a better movie than Tideland? The facts are that CSI and American Idol are the highest rated TV shows and Arrested Development was canceled, Green Day has gone multi-platinum but Sufjan Stevens sold less than 100,000 copies of Illinois. The American People have shown zero interest in anything with any sort of artistic value and line up for the most easily accessible fare available. It may shock you to learn that criticism doesn't have any sort of hidden agenda beyond the appraisal of the value a work has as a piece of art.

Try reading a book - and no Dan Brown doesn't count.

Reply

Ah see there you go, I meant exactly what I said and you've made a couple of my points. And telling me to 'try to go read a book' is really a personal attack and a not very clever way of saying that I'm stupid since I don't agree with your point of view. Obviously I must be stupid and someone who has never read a book. Well let's see, a Bachelors of Science from the University of Maryland, 3.8 GPA and I did take good high level literature classes and even a movie class as electives. Fun but hard work and it did arm me with a working knowledge of what the generally qualifies as the good stuff is so I know what the critics are babbling about. Law school, three years of reading many books, top third of the class, class president. So - I've read a book, how about you?

Wild Hogs a better movie that Tideland? Well you know, I love Jennifer Tilly but at the end of the day more folks will see and enjoy Wild Hogs. More people will connect with Wild Hogs than Tideland. More people will connect with the mid crisis humorous adventures of a number of A list actors than they will over a heroin overdosed mom, a girl on a farm and yada yada yada. More people will connect, more money will be made and more people will have a couple of hours of fun. A better movie, well heck yes.

Artistic value is a highly overrated concept and one used by some folks to feel superior to other folks. Arrested Development appealed to you and five other people and is now gone. You and some critics thought it was great and it touched you guys and you liked it. It got put in the environment it was designed to live in and it died. For whatever reason it didn't find an audience, not because people are stupid and wouldn't know quality if they saw it.

And really now. I assert that criticism, artistic criticism does not exist in a vacuum and while it's not a monolith in it's views, the tendencies of critics do show an agenda. Not hidden at all. It says that my opinion of quality is informed and your's is not. So my opinion is of more value than you - the unwashed masses.

And no, haven't read a Dan Brown book. Read any interesting Supreme Court opinions lately?

Reply

Wow Gadlaw, I'm impressed with your apparently innate ability to be so unabashedly hypocritical. You write up a page-long explanation of how critics and "artistic value" are simply there in order to make people feel superior to the "unwashed masses" while at the same time arrogantly touting your own superior place in the universe due to your extensive education, law degree, and ability to read Supreme Court decisions. We're all better for having you here to educate us with your erudite dissertations on popular culture.

I think the problem lies with one's definition of what's "better". Movies are a subjective medium. While it would be nice to think that everyone appreciates top-notch cinematography, directing, editing, writing, and acting, there are definitely those that see a movie just because Martin Lawrence is in it. If they blindly love whatever he's in, then that movie is "better" to them. Personally, while an actor might draw me to a theatre, it takes more than that actor to make me enjoy the film.

Your original argument is built on a VERY weak foundation, that there are only "fun" and "message" movies, and that there is zero crossover between these. You also argue that critics don't like "fun" movies. There are countless examples where critics have lauded a film that has done fantastic box office. Spider-Man, Titanic, The Godfather, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, just to name a few from a couple different genres. I don't think any of these qualify as "message" films, but they were very well made - be it in acting, writing, or directing, and both critics and audiences loved them.

Who are you to say that people who like one type of movie wouldn't like another? I have a pretty diverse collection, that has a lot of "stupid" comedies that are hilarious, sci-fi, horror, drama, classics, indies, etc.. I've had people look at me completely cock-eyed based on what they find there, but I stand by all of them as being entertaining, if not enriching. I have numerous friends who have a similar range of movies. So I'd say that the Big Mac to Kobe beef argument is valid. There are always people who like the entire spectrum of options, just as there are those who will boldly ask, "Why would I pay $30 for a hamburger? I like my McDonald's." when given the Kobe option.

In the end, a movie that makes $300 million but plays to the lowest common denominator with a director who has no ability with composition or setting a scene, hack actors and a script full of holes is "better" for a movie executive, but not to someone who loves the different aspects of film that make it an art form. But of course, something as complex as individual taste and popularity vs quality can be easily reduced to a simple black and white issue.

Reply

Come on now, the guy as much as called me an idiot, - you know, telling me to 'go read a book' - I've read a book, thank you kindly. I don't want to do any 'your momma' stuff. That's silly. But he did prove one of my points that folks think you're an idiot if you don't have the same opinion as they do. I merely showed him to be factually wrong.

And really you are right, it's subjective. I'm not an idiot, you aren't an idiot for liking the movies you like. I'm not superior for liking certain movies, you aren't smarter than me for liking something different. That's all I'm saying. Sorry if I appear wordy for you. Sometimes those fingers just fly on across the keyboard. That's why it's fun.

Yes indeed I generalized a bit. The types of movies run across the total range of everything that they can possibly be. But, fun movies are going to find their audience, message movies are more often than not pushed forward by critics who are more than happy to tell you why To Kill a Mockingbird or The Ox-Bow Incident are must see movies. That's just the nature of it.

And who am I to say that some people who like one kind of a movie wouldn't like another kind of movie? I'm like you, a guy with a keyboard and an opinion. Also the tale of the box office gives a good indication of what people like. So a generalization about people liking popular movies and not liking critically acclaimed movies is just a generalization but based on the numbers.

But really, it is fascinating going to Rotten Tomatoes to see the ratings based on critics and then seeing the money being made next to it. Wild Hogs, with only 19 percent of critics liking the movie is near 40 million, top of the list. The funny thing is though that I'm not going to go see that movie, not because of anything the critics say and not because the unwashed masses like it. Like most of the people who did or didn't see it, it's my own opinion that determines whether I'll see a movie or not. Probably same as you. :-)

Reply